WoMD ... so where are they?

im not sure if you actually believe your own fabrications, or if you simply dont think anyone will take the time to read your links and catch you on them.

I'm sorry dubla, but you are just plain wrong on this and you are the one that is trying to regurgitate something after being called on it several times.

FACT: Colin Powell showed photo's of installations at the UN

FACT: Said installations were labelled as weapons factories and storage

FACT: said installations were reported moved and bulldozed by powell......these are from your second link (bold, italic mine):

Most of the launchers and warheads had been hidden in large groves of palm trees and were to be moved every one to four weeks to escape detection.

We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities.

Let's look at one. This one is about a weapons munition facility, a facility that holds ammunition at a place called Taji. This is one of about 65 such facilities in Iraq. We know that this one has housed chemical munitions. In fact, this is where the Iraqis recently came up with the additional four chemical weapons shells.Here you see 15 munitions bunkers in yellow and red outlines. The four that are in red squares represent active chemical munitions bunkers.

How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look. Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions. The arrow at the top that says "security" points to a facility that is a signature item for this kind of bunker. Inside that facility are special guards and special equipment to monitor any leakage that might come out of the bunker. The truck you also see is a signature item. It's a decontamination vehicle in case something goes wrong. This is characteristic of those four bunkers. The special security facility and the decontamination vehicle will be in the area, if not at any one of them or one of the other, it is moving around those four and it moves as needed to move as people are working in the different bunkers.

Now look at the picture on the right. You are now looking at two of those sanitized bunkers. The signature vehicles are gone, the tents are gone. It's been cleaned up. And it was done on the 22nd of December as the UN inspection team is arriving, and you can see the inspection vehicles arriving in the lower portion of the picture on the right.

I'm going to show you a small part of a chemical complex called "Al Musayyib", a site that Iraq has used for at least 3 years to transship chemical weapons from production facilities out to the field. In May 2002, our satellites photographed the unusual activity in this picture.

Here we see cargo vehicles are again at this transshipment point, and we can see that they are accompanied by a decontamination vehicle associated with biological or chemical weapons activity. What makes this picture significant is that we have a human source who has corroborated that movement of chemical weapons occurred at this site at that time. So it's not just the photo and it's not an individual seeing the photo. It's the photo and then the knowledge of an individual being brought together to make the case.

This photograph of the site taken 2 months later, in July, shows not only the previous site which is the figure in the middle at the top with the bulldozer sign near it, it shows that this previous site, as well as all of the other sites around the site have been fully bulldozed and graded. The topsoil has been removed. The Iraqis literally removed the crust of the earth from large portions of this site in order to conceal chemical weapons evidence that would be there from years of chemical weapons activity.

simon, can you see the error in your logic? your argument was that the u.s./u.k. said they knew "exactly where" the weapons factories were before the war. to prove this, you provided links to powells presentaion. but in powells presentation, all the confimed weapons factories that he presented as evidence had already been moved or bulldozed! yet, as proof, you want the u.s. to now go in and "find" these bulldozed sites? in order for your arguement to be correct, you have to show that the u.s. claimed they had "exact" locations on CURRENT, CONFIRMED facilities. im sure youre intelligent enough to know the difference.....and your links DO NOT in any way shape or form back up your fabrication. all they show is that the u.s. claimed to have photos of sites that had been moved and bulldozed, and photos of mobile weapons labs....which i had already stated.

FACT: The USA refused to divulge locations to the UN weapons inspectors

is this one a "FACT" simply because you label it as such? from your link:

I might add at this point that we are providing all relevant information we can to the inspection teams for them to do their work.

you said:

Some links for you to review so you can refresh your obviously faulty or selective memory

ah simon, my memory isnt "obviously faulty or selective".........your argument has been, for awhile now, that the u.s. claimed they knew "exactly" where these confirmed active weapons factories were, and therefore should have been able to march in and find them. your links failed to back up this argument.....failed miserably. perhaps reading your own links before presenting them as evidence would help?

I might add at this point that we are providing all relevant information we can to the inspection teams for them to do their work.

Well, do you really believe for a minute that he would have admitted to the exact opposite? "We're making it hard for the weapons inspectors because we don't want to give up our excuse for war". duh!

The simple fact is, it appears that they found it incredibly easy to find all these weapons when then could not get in the country and when the Iraqi army was apparently trying to hide them and yet, now that they have free-run of the country on the ground and in the air they suddenly can't find diddly-squat !

Well, do you really believe for a minute that he would have admitted to the exact opposite? "We're making it hard for the weapons inspectors because we don't want to give up our excuse for war". duh!

so, basically its a "FACT" because simon says it is? facts need backing, and i was just showing that the statements youve been labeling as "facts" are intentionally misleading. if you labeled them "opinions", then i wouldnt have the need or desire to keep calling you on them.

The simple fact is, it appears that they found it incredibly easy to find all these weapons when then could not get in the country and when the Iraqi army was apparently trying to hide them and yet, now that they have free-run of the country on the ground and in the air they suddenly can't find diddly-squat !

is this your way of admitting you were completely wrong in your implication that the u.s. ever claimed to know "exactly" where the active facilities were? werent you the one who said "im the first person to admit it when im wrong".....yet when your arguments are proven incorrect, you simply make slight changes to them in order to right your ship......transparent and sad.

as far as your newest argument goes (the above), yes im sure the u.s. did find it easy to identify active wmd locations and suspicious activities due to movements. now, im guessing its probably impossible to track movements at this point, considering nothing is moving anywhere, and surely no sites can be active. i suppose the u.s. could continue satellite surveillance and watch for changes in factories, which is how they identified them previously....but how many changes can possibly be going on now?

so what are they left with? suspected sites to search, which they are doing.

Well, do you really believe for a minute that he would have admitted to the exact opposite? "We're making it hard for the weapons inspectors because we don't want to give up our excuse for war". duh!

The simple fact is, it appears that they found it incredibly easy to find all these weapons when then could not get in the country and when the Iraqi army was apparently trying to hide them and yet, now that they have free-run of the country on the ground and in the air they suddenly can't find diddly-squat !

The UN inspectors said they needed six months to a year to clear Iraq. In fact Blix said it will take as long as it takes. Everyone thinks he is the good guy on your side of the fence. Why is the US team given zero time and expects soldiers to be WMD inspectors as well as wave a magic wand and suddenly make decades of evil tyranical government rule all better? Your defense of your argument is so pathetic. Christ Simon I can make a better argument for your side than you are.

The UN inspectors said they needed six months to a year to clear Iraq. In fact Blix said it will take as long as it takes. Everyone thinks he is the good guy on your side of the fence. Why is the US team given zero time and expects soldiers to be WMD inspectors as well as wave a magic wand and suddenly make decades of evil tyranical government rule all better?

yes, simon wants the soldiers in iraq to be simultaneously taking care of the cities, facilitating humanitarian aid, rebuilding the war damage, defending their posts (which are still being attacked incidentally), etc, etc.....and searching every inch of the country for hidden (meaning intentionally and strategically concealed) wmd.......

i saw one estimate on the wmd search timeline for september-october, in order for the job to be thorough.........but obviously some demand evidence NOW....and even if evidence is produced, they will simply fall back to another argument against the war......weapons of mass destruction are just a hot button right now.....the easiest target.

some would argue that the u.s. wasnt willing to give the inspectors that much time.....but that argument is faulty on a couple of levels. number one, there wasnt near enough inspectors to search that entire country in the way it needed to be searched. number two, even with more inspectors, saddams regime was still active, and able to elude inspections over and over again....thus delaying the entire process further. lastly, and most importantly....the inspectors were not even there to find wmd, which is a fact that most forget or ignore. their job was to oversee the disarming of iraq, not to search........big difference.

Christ Simon I can make a better argument for your side than you are.

in fact many (if not most) of the antiwar posters already have. simons stance has been fueled by emotion from the start (not backed by "FACTS" as he likes to call them), and has always lacked objectivity, imo (and the opinion voiced by others on this thread).

: The Issue with AlanF was ... his claim that the Government Controls the media.

This is not at all what I said. Such a claim simply shows how braindead you are.

AlanF"""

Dear AlanF:

I object to your name calling and deception on this issue:

Here is what you said in this same topic:

""It astounds me that so many people have such strong opinions when most everyone realizes that almost all our information comes from the news media, which is not only biased in any number of directions, but is also manipulated by governments.""

Your Claims:

1. "Almost all" our "information" comes from the news media.

(What Rubbish)

2. The Media ‘is also" manipulated by the Government.

(does not really merit a reply)

More:"Government agencies put out only what they want people to hear. They have plenty of secrets, and secret agendas. News agencies know only what they can observe, and what government agencies tell them. ""

There you go. I agree it is simplistic rubbish, but you still said it. Any "thesaurus" will give you a list of what "Manipulated" means. Lets look at some more...

I claimed that the free flow of information via the internet has proven your claim wrong, and I gave some examples.

You reply, in part:

""...Many news agencies are themselves government sponsored and therefore reflect only what a government wants people to hear.."

(PBS? Your statement begs the question, what is "Sponsored" and how much is many?)

"....Reflect Only...".....words mean things.....

Hold on, your radicalism gets worse:

""The fact is that anyone who discloses information that a government wants kept secret will be either jailed or killed, depending on the government and other circumstances. That effectively stanches the flow of full information.""

"The fact is that anyone.." Wow, "fact...anyone" as used by you..... I then proved that "secrets" have been exposed, without the outcome you claim.

Your name calling, poor debating skills and your incorrect "facts" will not change reality, or what you said!

Let the readers decide. You offer no examples and only speak in absolutes. You resort to name calling, and refuse to take responsibility for your remarks. Your comments and reactions are deplorable.

Joking aside (World of Music and Dance), it is a testament to the ingenuity of the Iraqs... that even now the war is over, the Coalition Forces have not found anything that fits the description of the WoMD that they cited as one of the reasons for the invasion.

Of course, it is a good thing that Saddam Hussain has been removed from power. It is a good thing that the USA is apparently making its weight felt in Isaeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. It is a good thing the USA are likely involved in efforts to keep Pakistan and India at peace.

If India had followed the coalition's example and invaded a country with WoMD that represented a terrorist threat (and unlike Iraq, the USA and the UK, there is a common boader, active terrorist cells engaged in cross-boarder raids, and incontravertable proof thereof) and invaded Pakistan for the reasons that the coalition used to invade Iraq, we would have a war going on between two nuclear powwers.

This has not happened, but the risk is that even if India and Pakistan resolve the Kashmir question, there will be another situation where countries that cannot be trusted as much as the coalition will use the precident set by the coalition.

If WoMD are not found, then the trust that the coalition does have will be severely compromised.

The reason will be seen as a convenient excuse.

All things being considered, I think it very unlikely they won't find something...